nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Burkie1203

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban

No it cannot.

The IRFU would not be denying Grobler a right to work. Just refusing to sign a guy to their organisation (munster by extension specifically) on the grounds that he is a convicted doper and that goes against their anti doping policy.

And Grobler would be unable to do anything about that. IRFU wouldnt be denying him a right to work.

Is that really a difficult concept to grasp??

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

Again, the right to work

Under employment law, or not under employment law ?

NollagShona

prawnsambo wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he does. The same as any employer can refuse to hire a convicted drug dealer or convicted drug user.

They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served

Where in Employment law are you getting this idea ? Or is it just your own belief on how the law should be rather than what it actually is ?

NollagShona

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, I was being very hard on Munster and IRFU. I thought they signed Grobler due to a combination of a lapse of judgement and a pressing need to get more second row options for Munster.

Now I see that, in fact, they were obliged to sign him under employment law.

Someone should have just told Ruaidhri O'Connor that on day one.

I don’t know if you are deliberately conflating what I’m saying or not

NollagShona

https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

Former Former

NollagShona wrote: »

I don’t know if you are deliberately conflating what I’m saying or not

I'm just being a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is.

Munster didn't have to sign Grobler. They wouldn't even have to give a reason. The CEO of IRFU has since come out and said they won't sign any more dopers.

None of what you're saying is correct.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served

Nope. Conditions of employment can exclude drug users for any number of reasons.

NollagShona

Former Former wrote: »

I'm just being a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is.

Munster didn't have to sign Grobler. They wouldn't even have to give a reason. The CEO of IRFU has since come out and said they won't sign any more dopers.

None of what you're saying is correct.

I could see that comment being challenged in the courts as it is not legally enforceable

NollagShona

prawnsambo wrote: »

Nope. Conditions of employment can exclude drug users for any number of reasons.

They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

Yeah_Right

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU refused access to a single, specified journalist to the press conference after the French game.

Is anyone going to defend that?

Who was that and what was the reason given?

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

I could see that comment being challenged in the courts as it is not legally enforceable

Under what law specifically? Please post specific law?

If it is challengable why have Team Sky not been taken to court over the exact policy they have

Edit
IRFU using his doping ban to refuse to sanction his signing doesnt prevent Grobler from seeking employment elsewhere be it in rugby or outside the game. Its just a private organisation making a decision. So its not challengable.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

That link says nothing of the sort.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

And a sportsperson can't take BANNED drugs. So a sporting organisation can quite rightly refuse to hire such a person.

And you just said a few posts ago that if they've served their time their fine. Which is it?

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

He didnt argue it successfully. He lost. What are you reading ???

Flincher

My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.

Neil3030

Flincher wrote: »

My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.

How would discrimination work in a scenario where the employer doesn't advertise a position, nor interview several candidates. I.e., just offers one person a job. Seems to me that the rules can't even be enforced there.

joseywhales

Banning journalist and "trying to control the narrative" is the policy of dictators and psychopathic senior corporate managers, it fails 100% of the time but usually after a long and traumatic time for everyone involved.

Regarding the best attendance of a trial of an unconvicted(and assumed innocent) teammate, I think it's prudent that he sees all arguments before agreeing to be a character witness, we've seen only recently the damage that was done to the reputation of a former cork hurling goalkeeper when he naively provided character references for a friend.

molloyjh

Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?

Bazzo

What the hell is going on in this thread? I'd take a thousand pages of O'Halloran and Kearney over this.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?

We have the opinions of the journalists as to why the relations have soured. They're there for all to see. We know they refused a credentialed journalist access, which is outright bullying.

As for your last paragraph, the only thing you know is how much you know, I wouldn't be so certain about anyone else if I were you.

The reasons you have given are probably along the right lines and they are absolutely nowhere near good enough. And you shouldn't try to shame people for passing an opinion on that. The things we already know are the things we are passing judgement on. If we have to wait for an official statement from the IRFU to tell us how to feel about everything then all the IRFU have to do is say nothing and they'll be given a free pass by people like you into eternity. Forgive me for coming to my own conclusions.

swiwi_

NollagShona wrote: »

They can’t wait to publish the most seletios detail on the front of their webpage, without any regard for the alleged victim

Said the salacious Mexican.

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

You have completely failed to demonstrate anything of the sort. Suarez failed in his appeal. Give some evidence or at least stop posting the same unverified comment over and over and over again.

kilns

I think the Italian game showed what some Irish players can offer and what some cant, namely in the back row. If you want to play a tough battle like Paris then Stander and POM are the men for that but you could see that when you want to play a fast game flowing game it doesnt suit them and they dont have the skills for that, that is where the likes of Conan is ahead of them.

It will be an interesting call now for the Welsh game, I think Conan if fit will get the nod as with a back row of Stander and POM you dont have great pace, which you may need against the Welsh

[Deleted User]

Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.

What did you find so tough about it? The relationship between the IRFU and the press is worth discussing, it affects us as rugby supporters.

DGRulz

Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.

[Deleted User]

DGRulz wrote: »

Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.

Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.

kilns

I think people and group get annoyed as there are a few sensationlist journalists out there like Ewan McKenna and Eamon Sweeney and while 95% of what the write is mostly bull sh1T and is done for "clicks" there are some people in society who buy into what they are writing.

I dont blame the IRFU from not wanting to interact with guys like that, I am sure they have no issues with genuine journalists who dissect a game and discuss it

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.

The Indo mentions it and refers to it as a press 'huddle' that usually happens under the stands after the game and is separate to the press conference that happens afterwards. They also seem to be pointing the finger at Joe Schmidt rather than the IRFU. Interestingly The Irish Times makes no mention of it whatsoever.